valMEhttps://valme.io/
//valme.io/rss/all/tag/fashion/en-usSun, 15 Sep 2019 04:38:51 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/ngsqs/slut-walks-rape-and-hypocrisy-whats-eye-candy-got-to-do-with-it
How we do love eye-candy. And, after all, "since when is a woman dressing sexy in public a bad thing?"

By now, you've probably heard about the various "slut walks" that are happening all over the world. The slut walks are a response to a "safety tip" made by a Toronto police officer suggesting that women can avoid sexual assaults by not dressing like sluts. In other words, although rape may be non-consensual sex, don't encourage or instigate it. Stop "provoking" attention to yourself. In our politically correct world, that's not something you can say without there being repercussions. As one protest sign proclaimed, "a dress is not a yes."

The term slut is typically considered derogatory: a promiscuous woman with loose sexual morals, especially a prostitute. However, as many consider morality a relative concept, and considering these women are protesting for the right to be able to dress like sluts, it's not clear whether being a slut is "good" or "bad." What is clear is that there are women (and men) around the world who think that a person should be able to act however they want (in this case, wear whatever they want) without having someone initiate force against them for doing so.

Is that really such a terrible concept? Certainly seems reasonable: don't initiate violence against us just because of what we wear.

It's questionable whether or not those who protest in these slut walks are doing so based on some philosophical tenet like the initiation of force is always wrong (aka the non-aggression principle). More than likely, instead of there being some fundamental conviction that initiating force against innocent victims is always wrong, they are trying to gather majority support for the idea that initiating force against a woman in only certain circumstances is wrong (e.g., wears certain clothes, says no to sex). With enough support, their idea will become one held by the majority and then integrated into the social contract.

As a comparison, it is unlikely you will find many of these slut-walkers protesting against the government's initiation of force against innocent women. Although there are exceptions, like ifeminists, in many cases, women who are adamantly against sex when they say no are adamantly supportive of a government who initiates force against women during war or who puts women in jail when they, for example, say no to taxes. After all, "no means no" doesn't apply to violence against women accepted within the social contract.

The two primary arguments basically go like this: 1) a person is morally wrong when initiating force against others, and rape is a clear example of someone initiating force; 2) a victim shares some moral responsibility for force being initiated against her based upon her actions. (In fact, Ayn Rand's infamous rape scene in The Fountainhead has often been debated as to whether or not it was rape based upon argument #2.)

A few analogies complicate these arguments. Let's say you have a choice to walk home from work late at night taking two different paths, each that require the same amount of time and effort. One path is well-lit and with many people; as such, it is considered a "safe" route. The other path doesn't have street lights, is through alleys where it is known many criminals hide, and is considered a "dangerous" route. If you choose to take the dangerous path and violence is initiated against you, should you be judged as partially responsible for the crime? After all, shouldn't you be free to walk wherever you want and not be victimized just because you took a different path? Or, did you encourage the situation and, ultimately, a crime, because of your choices and actions?

Here's another analogy: let's say someone wants to live somewhere in peace without government intervention or paying any taxes. So she buys a home in the country away from people and becomes self-sufficient. The local government sends her a bill for property taxes which she refuses to pay. So the police arrest her and put her in jail for not paying her taxes, and they sell her home to pay the taxes. All the woman had to do was concede to pay the taxes and the police wouldn't have used force against her. In other words, she chose the "dangerous" path and violence was initiated against her. Most would consider the violence used against her solely the result of her actions and, thus, she is fully responsible.

What if a white woman goes to a predominantly black neighborhood and wears a T-shirt that says "I hate black people?" Should she be allowed to wear that shirt and not considered partially responsible if someone initiates violence against her for doing so? (As an aside, remember that some governments have laws against what people can and cannot wear, such as sagging pants or burqas.)

What makes the analogies different from rape being partially caused by what you wear? Is what a woman wears a contributing factor to rape? Can a victim be partially responsible for violence that is initiated against her? When we voluntarily take actions that are more likely to create a situation where violence will occur, should victims be held more responsible? What constitutes encouragement of a crime? Why are women not morally required to dress a certain way in order to discourage rape? Why can a woman say no to sex but not say no to others (like the government) who want to initiate force against her? What standards should be applied when determining whether a woman is partially or solely responsible for violence being initiated against her?

Logically, if we value something, we find discomfort in the absence of the valued characteristic. And, for most, beauty is a value. In fact, there is little debate that our feelings of beauty impact our self-worth. How beautiful we think ourselves affects the actions we take. Like intelligence, health, abilities, accomplishments, etc., beauty is a component of our whole, integrated self.

What is beauty to you? What standards do you use? Do you consider this woman more beautiful at the end of the clip than at the beginning of it, knowing full-well that it isn't real? Where are children getting these ideas? Are actresses perpetrating a fraud? Are the TV, movie, advertising, and beauty industries doing a disservice to women by making women appear unrealistic? What are the goals that women are trying to achieve with unnatural beauty enhancements, and are they worthwhile goals? Should we reject the images that we see of beautiful women in magazines and focus on natural beauty? Is it absurd to ignore beauty or value a beauty that isn't real?

Evolution is an advertising campaign launched by Unilever in 2006 as part of its Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, to promote the newly created Dove Self-Esteem Fund. The centre of the Unilever campaign is a 75-second spot produced by Ogilvy & Mather in Toronto, Canada. The piece was first displayed online on 6 October 2006, and was later broadcast as a television and cinema spot in the Netherlands and the Middle East. The ad was created from the budget left over from the earlier Daughters campaign, and was intended to be the first in a series of such online-focused spots by the company. Later pieces include Onslaught and Amy. Evolution was directed by Canadian director Yael Staav and Tim Piper, with sound design handled by the Vapor Music Group, and post-production by SoHo.

The advert was a critical, popular, and financial success. It won a number of awards in the advertising industry, including two Cannes Lions Grand Prix awards and an Epica D'Or. It has been discussed in many mainstream television programmes and print publications, and the exposure generated by the spot has been estimated to be worth over $150M. Evolution has also spawned numerous unofficial alternate versions, including a title sequence to a BBC sketch show and the short parody Slob Evolution, which has gone on to itself be nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award.

]]>Sun, 01 Oct 2017 07:31:33 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/k6sqs/beauty-and-the-eyes-of-the-beholderbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/yvsqs/omg-theres-discrimination-in-the-modeling-industry
New research confirms scandal: not just anyone can be a supermodel. Such discrimination! Say the word discrimination and most immediately think of prejudice. In many countries, by law, employers cannot discriminate against a litany of categories (e.g., race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, disability, age). Anyone who has ever been discriminated against will tell you - it's not a pleasant experience.

Yet, most every activity we do during the day is based upon making a choice and, to make that choice, we must discriminate - that is, we must differentiate between competing alternatives. What you eat, where you work, what you study, who you choose to be your friends, what you read, where you live, what music you listen to, which movies you watch, the clothes you wear... these are all examples of discrimination. So why do laws against discrimination exists when everyone discriminates on a daily basis? What would happen if laws didn't exist against discrimination?

The Australian media recently featured a story of an allegation of race discrimination in the modeling industry.[1] Ms. Kema Rajandran, a beautiful young Indian model, complained to news services about a modeling agency in Perth that advised her that her work would be limited because of her race. In an email to Ms. Rajandran, the coordinator of the agency said,

We think you are very photogenic and would be suitable for our Casting Division. ... Please note however that as you are of non-Caucasian heritage your work opportunities in Perth would be extremely limited.[2]

Now, there is no doubt that this is race discrimination, or at least an indication that Ms. Rajandran can expect to encounter race discrimination in her future attempts to book modeling work in Perth. Evidently offended by this news, Ms. Rajandran told the Australian media that she plans to speak out against the agency (and in fact was already doing so, by complaining to the media about the matter in the first place).

In response, the manager of the modeling agency adopted the don't-shoot-the-messenger defense, arguing that the agency was just being honest with Ms. Rajandran about her prospects in the Perth modeling industry. "This is just ridiculous," the manager told the media. "I don't see that this is race related. If we don't feel that she's going to secure work in the Perth market ... then we tell [her] about it. We have the liberty to give an honest opinion."[3]

Really? Not race related? Doesn't that term "non-Caucasian heritage" have just a little bit to do with race?

Let's get real here: this is race related. Ms. Rajandran has been advised that she is, or will be, the subject of adverse race discrimination as a model in Perth. She has been explicitly advised that she will find it harder to get modeling work because she is not Caucasian - and you don't get too much more clear-cut than that. It is quite likely that this race discrimination is not the agency's decision, and that they are indeed just the messenger, but it is nonetheless real. This is race related.

So is this unfair? There is something about race discrimination that certainly seems unfair to many people. Ms. Rajandran can't change the fact that she is Indian, nor, presumably, would she want to. She has no control over her race and had no choice in the matter to begin with - she was born with Indian heritage, and she will die with Indian heritage. It is not a characteristic that reflects on her character or decisions. And she is therefore facing adverse consequences from a personal characteristic that is not of her own making. Nevertheless, something seems amiss. Something rings hollow about her protests. But what is it?

One might feel a bit sorry for Ms. Rajandran. One might, that is, until one realizes that although she is the subject of adverse discrimination in this present instance, she is also the beneficiary of many other forms of discrimination, of a very similar kind. In fact, her entire career, and her entire qualification as a model, depends on forms of discrimination that are exactly as arbitrary and superficial as the race discrimination she is now facing.

This moral similarity between race discrimination and other kinds of discrimination is quite interesting. In his writings on discrimination, Professor Walter Block exposes the absurdity of attempts to forcibly equalize representation in different occupations and activities amongst demographic groups, saying,

Even if such a policy were possible to administer fairly, which it is not, even if it did some good, which it does not, it is always open to the charge of hypocrisy, for there is no difference in principle between the characteristics which are presently protected (race, gender, nationality) and those that are not (height, weight, intelligence, beauty). And further, the characteristics we have so far considered are only the tip of the iceberg of those upon which people discriminate.

In addition, to mention only a few more, there is hair color, the side of the head upon which people part their hair, fastidiousness, neatness, strength of handshake, biliousness, loudness, shyness, considerateness, reliability, left or right handedness - the list goes on and on.[4]

What else can Professor Block teach us about discrimination in the present case? Well, take a look at the photos below: one is a picture of Ms. Rajandran; the other is a picture of Professor Block.

Ask yourself, why is it that Ms. Rajandran can make a living as a fashion model, but Professor Block probably could not? If your visual assessment is anything like mine, you'll notice the following: Ms. Rajandran is a young woman, whereas Professor Block is an older gentleman, whose peak of physical beauty is probably a few years behind him. She is extremely lean and physically fit, whereas he is a bit stockier, with less muscle tone and a touch more bulk. She has a beautiful, youthful face, full lips, stylish hair, taut skin, a long elegant nose, and big bright youthful eyes. He has quite a handsome face, but with older, less-taut skin, smaller eyes, a bigger, more-bulbous nose, scruffier and grayer hair, and a proud bald cranium - not exactly in high demand in the modeling world. (But at least he doesn't have to worry about discrimination on the basis of which side he parts his hair!)

Doubtless, Professor Block is a handsome fellow. But absent some major change in the kind of "look" favored in the modeling world, he is not likely to appear on the catwalk anytime soon. He is of Caucasian heritage yes, but nonetheless, due to other unchosen characteristics, his opportunities in the modeling world are, as a modeling agency might put it, "extremely limited."

Let's suppose that the offending modeling agency is correct in their assessment that the prospects for a non-Caucasian model in Perth are extremely limited. Why would this kind of race discrimination exist? Though there are certainly some people in the modeling industry who have control over the kinds of models chosen, presumably the ultimate culprit is the public, whose viewing and buying decisions determine what kind of "look" a modeling campaign needs to have in order to be successful. As Mises has noted, it is consumers, not producers, who are the ultimate decision makers in the market economy; it is not a particular modeling agency that is ultimately in control of the kinds of women who make it as models. Although they are the decision makers in many individual cases, in the long run, it is the preferences of people in the public who drive the demand for models of different kinds.[6] If there is a preference for Caucasian models in the modeling industry, then this is most likely the result of the preferences of consumers in the public, just as is the preference for thin models over plump ones, young models over old ones, and so on.

If one has a complaint about race discrimination in modeling, then the ultimate target of that complaint is, well, basically everyone. People care about looks, and one's race and genetic lineage affect one's looks. Ms. Rajandran's deep-brown eyes, silky dark hair, light-brown skin, and long, elegant nose are all a product of her "non-Caucasian heritage," and yet these characteristics may well have been responsible for booking her some of her modeling gigs, and putting her image in front of thousands of gawking men the world over.

There's race discrimination in modeling? Wow, no kidding!

Ben O'Neill is a lecturer in statistics at the University of New South Wales (ADFA) in Canberra, Australia. He has formerly practiced as a lawyer and as a political adviser in Canberra. He is a Templeton Fellow at the Independent Institute, where he won first prize in the 2009 Sir John Templeton Fellowship essay contest. Send him mail. See Ben O'Neill's article archives.

A special thank-you is in order to Professor Walter Block, who kindly gave his blessing to be featured in the above physical comparison with a twenty-something-year-old model. Thanks to Professor Block for his commitment to sound thinking about discrimination, and his sense of humor.

[6] See Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy (2007), p. 17. There is some dispute in the present matter as to whether modeling agents are responding to actual public preferences, or simply self-profiling, in the absence of any particular public preference, or in opposition to them. Suresh Rajan, former president of the Ethnic Communities Council claims that the preference for Caucasian models in Perth is due to "whether or not the market sees it as being relevant" (Rickard and Styles [2011]) though others in the modeling industry disagree. In either case, what is clear from Mises's work is that producers who do not produce in accordance with consumer preferences will not survive in the long run, and hence, ultimately, absent intervention, the consumers will drive the market.

]]>Sun, 01 Oct 2017 06:05:05 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/yvsqs/omg-theres-discrimination-in-the-modeling-industrybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/l8sqs/how-to-secure-your-art
Many artists are concerned about copying, especially in the online world. It's a significant problem in Second Life where copybots can copy an artist's/owner's content without their permission. This content is then often resold without the artist getting any compensation. Some solutions have been proposed to address copying abuse and to make those who copy financially accountable. In the music industry, and putting aside bands like the Grateful Dead who were against copyrights, the RIAA has gone after people who copy songs with significant legal action (30,000 lawsuits), winning controversial judgments like $1.5 million against a mother who shared 24 songs. However, that approach has made them out to be bullies and strongly criticized.

No one has ever claimed a reproduction of my work as their own, but when I've known about images of my work being used without any mention of my name I've approached the situation as a teaching opportunity or used it as an illustrative point.

4) Embrace the copying of style.

Lots of people make originals that resemble mine somewhat, and it makes me feel pretty good about my work.

5) Don't assume that anyone is copying style.

It's usually pretty difficult to be sure that anyone is copying anyone else. That said, if another artist was making and selling works that I was certain were copies of my paintings, I would probably talk about them on my blog. It would drive Internet traffic looking for them to me.

Humans have never believed in paying for an idea or even in giving credit for every idea. I like to think I always remember to do so, but I probably don't. It's hard to trace every bit of culture that makes up my own personal culture - the things I believe in, enjoy, and create.

Everything from screaming about your intellectual property rights and threatening lawyers to shrink-wrapping your images online and making them not right-click-able is just burying your head in the sand. An open source world is the one we've always lived in: it's the one we built.